What can you say about a FEATURED headline like this:
"Herman Cain may be breakng confidentiality agreement, say experts"
Yes, that INCREDIBLE, DIHONEST, RACIST and HPOCIRITICAL headline is a present featured headline on AT&T/Yahoo, from their "paratners" at ABC "News".
Of course the headline is specualtion, andnot fact. Tut that is a given for today's "journalists"--especailly thiose of the mainstream media. But it is much worse thatn that. If you take ABC seiuisly (as I don't, except as seriously EVIL people), ABC is saying taht Herman Cain should have refuesed to comment on the story (where SOMEONEoterh than Cain broke the "cxonfidentiality agreement", witht he AID of the mainstream media CONCEALING the culprit so he felt safe to do so) about this "sexual harrassment" caim. Uhhuh. And what would ABC have said about ThHAT. Q.E.D. These are the worst hypocriets to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. They are evil racists. They are dishonest.
I HOPE the mainstream media is reduced to THIS. Desperatrion. Cowardice. Defeat. Total frutratioin. That is what dredging up THIOS "Hail Mary" pass means for ABC, and the rest of the mainstream media. If this is all they have-some alleged, technical "violation" of an agreement Cain probalby never even signed--then Herman Cain has WON. They have NOTHING.
I heard the LAWYER for the "accuser" on CNN. He did NOT complain about a "breach" of teh confidentiality aggreement (partly because, I am sure, he is afraid his CLIENT has already breached the agreement). Where is the story from ABC about how the WOMAN may have already breached the confidentiality agreement that SHE definitely signed? No, the LAWYER (the real "expert" here, and it is a LIE to say that other "experts" SPECUALTING have any standing at all) had only one real concern: that his client be free to tell her story. In other words, the lawyer not only did not complain about CAIN violating the agreement, but wanted Cain to call for it to be WAIVED. This is as evil as it gets. The Ku Klux Klan could not attempt a more blatant LYNCHING of Herman Cain than the mainstram media is attempting.
WHY does the lawyer want the agreement "waived", even though the layer has not ASKED the National Restaurant Asssociation to wiave it (and may yet prove a dishoenst hypocrite himself, if the media gives him another idea of how hi sclient may gain money and fame--always assuming she is not GUILTY herself).? As I said in my previous article, the most LIKELY explanation of why the lawyer would like the agreement "waived", ven though he KNOWS that his client can speak out whenever she wants without much fear of anythihg happening to her, is that the lawyer believes that this can be a source of MONEY to himself and his client. I think that is why he told CNN that no one would probably hear from his client if the agreement was not waived. This was just an eattempt to manipulate a willing media to DEMAND a waiver. Whjat good does a waiver do? See my previous article. The woman--really the lawyer--may have concern abut lwhether she can MAKE MONEY off of her story without a waiver. If she merely spekas out, withut profit to herself, in th epublic interest, NOTHING can really happen to her. But if she gets lots of MONEY for a book, interveiws, etc. she is no longer a sympathetic figure. THEN, the money MAY be taken away form her (and the lawyer). Oh, it may not. But the lawyer would wnt to avoid that problem.
Okay. ABC is a RACST organization particiapting fully in this attempted media LYNCHING of Herman Cain. But I stand behind the hedline. Yahoo has PARNERED with ABC, and is makng no effort to rein in this RACISM. and AT&T has PARTNERED with Yahoo You are RESPONSIBLE for what your partner does, and what YOU do (featureing these RACIST stories). Therefore, I continue to make this flat statement: AT&T and Yahooo are RACIST organizationis, and you should boyctott them on that ground. Of course, I have previuisly said you should boycott them for many things, includng racism. But this story is so obvious, that AT&T and Yahoo should rue the day they ever featured stories in support of this LYNCHING of Herman Cain. I will never let them forget it.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). You might want to consider: if AT&T and Yahoo should coome after ME (no grounds, and I don't think even they are that stupid), do they convict themselves as also being againt the BLIND. Can I "play the BLIND card"? This being a VICTIM has its advantages. What about Google? Google DOES have the right, as a private company, to control its own property. This is a Google blog. If I disappear from Googel, you will know what happened (assumng I am not deatd). No, I don't think this will happen either. But these are EVIL PEOPLE (talking aoubt the epople who might put pressure on Google, if they thought I was enough of a threat). As the parenthesis imprlies, the main reason no actino will be taken against me is that I am not influential enough. Otherwise, just like the LYNCHING of Herman Cain (who has been growing influential engouh), the lnong knives would be out for ME.